6. I-73 Corridor (VDOT; Southwest Virginia):a. VDOT identified the purpose and need for the I-73 Corridor to include improving safe movement of people and goods in the US Route 220 corridor, enhancing system linkage and intermodal connections, and providing for the economic growth, economic vitality and maintenance of existing economic competitiveness in southwest Virginia. The alignment approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board and Federal Highway Administration also improves access to existing and developing industrial areas and enhances economic development in the City of Martinsville and Henry County.b. High-Level Screening Report to be initiated to evaluate the potential for procurement of the I-73 Corridor via the PPTA or other alternative delivery methods.

The Virginia Office of Transportation Public-Private Partnerships has issued its High-Level Screening Report and has recommended that the I-73 project be advanced to the Detail-Level screening phase of the process, apparently over the objection of Charlie Kilpatrick, VDOT's Commissioner of Highways:

I used to live in Greensboro and worked in Roanoke usually once or twice a week. The road sucks. Good deal of truck tragic and is dangerous. I hated driving it. No matter where they put 73, it's needed.

I believe that I-73, anyway, should be built between the Triad and the State Line as when I rode that stretch even many years ago, it was substandard to say the least for handling the needs of the motorists using that part.

The Virginia Office of Transportation Public-Private Partnerships has issued its High-Level Screening Report and has recommended that the I-73 project be advanced to the Detail-Level screening phase of the process, apparently over the objection of Charlie Kilpatrick, VDOT's Commissioner of Highways

This article reports that the Virginia Senate has approved a resolution establishing a joint committee to study the construction of proposed Interstate 73 to help expedite the project

This article reports that the Interstate 73 Joint Subcommittee held its first meeting on November 10 and that their initial strategy appears to be an attempt to put together a four-state or five-state joint effort to get federal funding:

Quote

Virginia Sen. Bill Stanley left the first meeting of the Interstate 73 Joint Subcommittee feeling encouraged about the future of the highway.“The concerns before this meeting started were, ‘Does anyone have an interest in I-73?’” Stanley said following the Monday meeting at New College Institute. “I think we answered that today. ... People in our region and people from West Virginia all the way down to South Carolina have an incredible desire to see this road built in our lifetimes.” ....A collaborative approach between states, Stanley said, is the only way to get the project off the ground.“We know highways cost billions of dollars to (build), but I think with a collaborative effort ... we can build this road together,” he said. “Individually, it may be a harder go, but I think together, a four-state (or) five-state compact going to the federal government can make this road a reality.”The single largest challenge that I-73 faces, Stanley said, is the sheer cost of the project. There are several different funding resources to consider, he said, including road bonds and federal funds, though states also must be prepared to shoulder some of the burden ....A portion of the subcommittee’s meeting was devoted to the economic impact of I-73, as calculated by Chmura Economics and Analytics. Dr. Xiaobing Shuai of Chmura offered his analysis.Shuai said that Chmura estimates the construction cost of the Virginia portion of I-73 at $4 billion. ....

I am glad they didn't give up. Despite money woes, the project can easily be divided in short sections... They could extend I-581 to US 220 (by building a connector road somehow) south of Boones Hill "Boones Hill bypass". IMO, if they divide the project in short sections, they could build it with a little money they have left if any...

They're still not giving up. Although I-73 shields are not going up on I-581, this radio story reports that “Future I-73 Corridor” signage was unveiled today and will soon be installed along I-581 in Roanoke:

Quote

You’ll soon start seeing signs on I-581 in Roanoke identifying it as part of the Interstate 73 corridor ….Court Rosen is a member of the Commonwealth Transportation Board … Rosen – also a Roanoke City Council Member – appeared outside Valley View Mall today with State Senator Bill Stanley to unveil the “Future I-73 Corridor” signage …

This article reports that the Interstate 73 Joint Subcommittee held its first meeting on November 10 and that their initial strategy appears to be an attempt to put together a four-state or five-state joint effort to get federal funding:

Quote

Virginia Sen. Bill Stanley ....A collaborative approach between states, Stanley said, is the only way to get the project off the ground.“We know highways cost billions of dollars to (build), but I think with a collaborative effort ... we can build this road together,” he said. “Individually, it may be a harder go, but I think together, a four-state (or) five-state compact going to the federal government can make this road a reality.”

This article reports that Gov. McAuliffe has signed into law Senate Bill 847, which establishes the I-73 Federal Transportation Compact:

Quote

State Sen. Bill Stanley, R-Glade Hill, announced Friday that Gov. Terry McAuliffe has signed into law Senate Bill 847, which establishes the I-73 Federal Transportation Compact.The legislation, which Stanley sponsored, creates a partnership between Virginia, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina to coordinate the funding and strategic development and construction of the proposed interstate, which would link coastal South Carolina and the Canadian border.The bill was approved with strong bipartisan support earlier during this year’s General Assembly session. When completed, the Virginia portion of I-73 will traverse the Virginia state line in Henry County, through Martinsville and Franklin County, and lead through Roanoke to the West Virginia border ....Stanley is chairman of the Senate I-73 Committee, which has been tasked by the Virginia Senate to develop the strategic plan and funding needed to build the Virginia portion of the interstate highway within the next 10 years, the release said.

Local, state and federal transportation patrons on Friday hailed the installation of five signs that say “Future 73 Corridor.”You’ll see the red and blue markers along Interstate 581 and the﻿ Roy L. Webber Expressway ﻿ soon ....VDOT paid for the signs at $400 apiece at the request of the Roanoke Valley Transportation Planning Organization. That regional planning body called for building the road “as soon as feasible.” ....State Sen. Bill Stanley, R-Franklin County, predicted it will be built “in our lifetime.” He is 47 and noted that the typical life expectancy is 75. That leaves 28 years in his lifetime.

I drove through Roanoke the other day, I saw the "Future I-73 Corridor" along I-581/US 220. I'd say. About time! I am still holding hope for VA to build their part. NC is starting to build I-73 North of Greensboro towards NC 68 intersection that will be turned into an interchange.

This article reports that the FHWA has completed the environmental assessment work for the I-73 corridor, but there is no available money for design work:

Quote

...The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration on Dec. 21 issued a “Finding of No Significant Impact” on the environment with the Henry County alternate route for the interstate.The alternate route runs from Virginia 890/108, near Figsboro, around the east side of Martinsville to Virginia 87 near Ridgeway, according to the statement issued Dec. 21 by Irene Rico, division administrator for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) ....Jason Bond, Salem District spokesman for the Virginia Department of Transportation, said Friday the Finding of No Significant Impact “completes the environmental assessment work for the corridor” of I-73, and “it means that design work could proceed if funding were available.”In addition to the $8.5 million that has been allocated, an estimated $12.9 million more is needed to start the design phase, according to previous reports ....

This September 24 article reports that design work cannot begin until additional studies requested by the Army Corps of Engineers are completed:

Quote

Further studies are needed before design work could begin on Interstate 73, according to Virginia Department of Transportation Resident Engineer Lisa Hughes.While providing the Henry County Board of Supervisors with an update on general highway matters at the board’s 6 p.m. meeting on Tuesday, the issue of the long-delayed interstate was brought up by Iriswood District Supervisor Milton Kendall. Hughes said that the Army Corps of Engineers has requested the additional study of alternative routes for the highway.Board Chairman H.G. Vaughn said that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) had already approved the alternative route for I-73. Hughes agreed that was the case, but said that the Army Corps of Engineers still has requested studies of alternative locations that would use existing roadways.Henry County Administrator Tim Hall ....“As I understand it,” Hall continued, “the correspondence from the Corps related to this (I-73) project was they wanted to know why nobody had ever fully studied … updating 220 as opposed to building a new structure. The Corps has purview if something crosses waters of national significance – as they define waters of national significance – and it requires an alternatives analysis to see if you can avoid those impacts.”Vaughn pointed out that 220 Business would not be suitable for an upgrade because it is lined with commercial development. Hall said that while that may seem obvious, it still must be proven to the Corps.“Sometimes what appears logical to us does not fit their parameters of what they need you to prove,” Hall said. “I think the Corps comes in when you start talking about impacting streams on that route. The route could be selected as the appropriate route, but the Corps will still require someone to study the alternatives to that route to lessen the impact on waters of national significance.”Hall added that he did not mean to bash the Corps, as they do excellent work and it is of course important to protect water sources.“But they have a certain process, and you do not deviate them from that process,” he said.

Huh...apparently to them, I-581 isn't an Interstate. Funny, last time I checked, it was designed, built, and signed as one...As for their claim that it could become I-73 with even a short extension, they're a bit off. FHWA requires a logical and significant termini for new Interstates...for the most part, another Interstate, an NHS route, or a major city/installation. Aside from VA 419 (which is still in Roanoke County), there's nothing along US 220 that would meet that criteria until Martinsville.

Meanwhile, this September 2 article reports that, as regards Roanoke, the Roanoke Valley Transportation Planning Organization does not intend to include I-73 as a priority for the Roanoke area because "planners haven’t found a logical way to break off a piece in the Roanoke region to build by itself":

Quote

The top transportation needs for 2016 are the widening and lighting of Interstate 81 in the Roanoke Valley, paving another segment of greenway and coordinating traffic lights on U.S. 220 south, according to a tentative list drawn up by Roanoke-area officials.Between now and Sept. 30, when applications for state highway money are due, officials plan to hear public comments and may revise the list ....House Bill 2, signed into law in 2014, requires “a quantifiable and transparent prioritization process for making funding decisions for capacity-enhancing projects,” a user guide says. The first deadline for local governments, regional planning bodies, transit agencies and others to seek money under the new scheme, HB2 for short, is Sept. 30 ....Roanoke’s regional body doesn’t plan to ask for money for the proposed new Interstate 73. It’s too large to score well under HB2 and planners haven’t found a logical way to break off a piece in the Roanoke region to build by itself, said Bryan Hill, a transportation planner at the commission.“We’re in a holding pattern,” he said.Sen. Bill Stanley, R-Franklin County, has established a partnership between Virginia and the other states to coordinate how to pay for and build the proposed interstate.

The dealings with the Corps suggest to me that there are wetland impacts with the approved and/or alternative routes. The Corps is the entity that issues Federal wetlands permits...and this was the primary reason why the "new 460" withered on the vine. Virginia leaders of the time were ignorant of the matter and approved contracts (and spending) anyway even though the Corps had not issued permits and was not about to given the amount of impacts with the 460 project.

The dealings with the Corps suggest to me that there are wetland impacts with the approved and/or alternative routes. The Corps is the entity that issues Federal wetlands permits...and this was the primary reason why the "new 460" withered on the vine. Virginia leaders of the time were ignorant of the matter and approved contracts (and spending) anyway even though the Corps had not issued permits and was not about to given the amount of impacts with the 460 project.

That's a bizarre situation, at least in terms of how NY proceeds with lettings of projects. In NY, you have to have all permits in at least by award of the contract. In other words, you can't award a contract without the USACE sign-off, if applicable.

That said, authorizing federal funding is simple enough and can basically be done at any appropriate time (i.e., if you have a PS&E, you can authorize construction funds; if you have design approval, authorization of design phases V-VI...etc.). If it was entirely state funded, even easier.

My point is that the funding for it being set up isn't so surprising as the fact they "approved" the contract without the USACE permit. NYSDOT fears that if they ever did something like that, that it would incur all sorts of oversight from all sorts of places that would hamper its ability to progress future projects.

Logged

Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

My point is that the funding for it being set up isn't so surprising as the fact they "approved" the contract without the USACE permit.

To my knowledge, there was either zero or very little Federal funding involved. Most of it was going to be state funding...toll-backed bonds wouldn't even cover 40% of the project cost. Then-governor McConnell heavily backed the project and IMO is the primary reason why the contracts were let before the wetlands permits were issued, even though ACE at that point already had reservations about the amount of wetlands being destroyed for the project.

When Virginia finally gets the I-73 project going, I think they should focus on building the short section from NC/VA state line to US 58 bypass first (bypass Ridgeway), giving them a headstart. (I know VDOT is broke, but so is other DOTs across the U.S.)

Anyways, any news on it?

How far would it be from the last planned exit in NC to the state line?

My point is that the funding for it being set up isn't so surprising as the fact they "approved" the contract without the USACE permit.

To my knowledge, there was either zero or very little Federal funding involved. Most of it was going to be state funding...toll-backed bonds wouldn't even cover 40% of the project cost. Then-governor McConnell heavily backed the project and IMO is the primary reason why the contracts were let before the wetlands permits were issued, even though ACE at that point already had reservations about the amount of wetlands being destroyed for the project.

That's still crazy...Then again, I'm saying that from the state where NYSDOT starts cutting down trees before getting local support for a rest area on Long Island...

Logged

Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

This article reports that Gov. McAuliffe has signed into law Senate Bill 847, which establishes the I-73 Federal Transportation Compact:

Quote

State Sen. Bill Stanley, R-Glade Hill, announced Friday that Gov. Terry McAuliffe has signed into law Senate Bill 847, which establishes the I-73 Federal Transportation Compact.The legislation, which Stanley sponsored, creates a partnership between Virginia, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina to coordinate the funding and strategic development and construction of the proposed interstate, which would link coastal South Carolina and the Canadian border.

This January 15 article reports that Virginia Congressman Robert Hurt is the lead sponsor of a U.S. House of Representatives resolution in support of I-73:

Mr. Hurt of Virginia (for himself, Ms. Adams, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Griffith, Mrs. Comstock, and Mr. Rice of South Carolina) submitted the following resolution ....Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding an Interstate 73 corridor transportation compact.Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the entering into of an agreement or compact by 2 or more States, for cooperative effort and mutual assistance, would be beneficial to the development of an Interstate 73 corridor. Such an agreement may incorporate the following elements to the extent that such elements are consistent with Federal law and specifically section 1105(c)(5) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991:(1) Study, development, and promotion of a plan for the design, construction, financing, and operation of the Interstate 73 corridor through the States of South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan.(2) Coordination of efforts to establish a common legal framework in all the signatory States to authorize and facilitate design, construction, financing, and operation of the Interstate 73 corridor or through public-private partnerships.(3) Advocacy for Federal funding to support the establishment of the Interstate 73 corridor.(4) Making available to the Interstate 73 corridor project funding and resources that are or may be appropriated by the signatory States and allocated for that purpose.(5) Doing all things necessary or convenient to facilitate and coordinate the design, construction, financing, and operation of the Interstate 73 corridor to the extent that such plans and programs are consistent with Federal law and the laws of the signatory States.

I suppose the "cooperative effort and mutual assistance" is ultimately intended to be some form of dedicated funding for I-73.

Mr. Hurt of Virginia (for himself, Ms. Adams, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Griffith, Mrs. Comstock, and Mr. Rice of South Carolina) submitted the following resolution ....Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding an Interstate 73 corridor transportation compact.Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the entering into of an agreement or compact by 2 or more States, for cooperative effort and mutual assistance, would be beneficial to the development of an Interstate 73 corridor. Such an agreement may incorporate the following elements to the extent that such elements are consistent with Federal law and specifically section 1105(c)(5) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991:(1) Study, development, and promotion of a plan for the design, construction, financing, and operation of the Interstate 73 corridor through the States of South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan.(2) Coordination of efforts to establish a common legal framework in all the signatory States to authorize and facilitate design, construction, financing, and operation of the Interstate 73 corridor or through public-private partnerships.(3) Advocacy for Federal funding to support the establishment of the Interstate 73 corridor.(4) Making available to the Interstate 73 corridor project funding and resources that are or may be appropriated by the signatory States and allocated for that purpose.(5) Doing all things necessary or convenient to facilitate and coordinate the design, construction, financing, and operation of the Interstate 73 corridor to the extent that such plans and programs are consistent with Federal law and the laws of the signatory States.

IMO, those "sense of the House of Representatives" and "sense of the Senate" resolutions should be eliminated.

Either come up with a plan that funds the project, or do nothing, but don't waste federal tax dollars on these "sense of" resolutions.

I suppose the "cooperative effort and mutual assistance" is ultimately intended to be some form of dedicated funding for I-73.

I do not know enough about the merits of the project (from the Virginia/North Carolina border to Roanoke) to express an opinion, though it sounds almost like an ADHS-type of highway project.

Logged

Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

This article reports that Ronald “Skip” Ressel Jr., president of the I-73 Committee of Martinsville and Henry County, revealed that the I-73 project has come to an end:

Quote

The Board of Supervisors held a meeting at 6 p.m. on Tuesday in which they opened the floor for public hearings and matters presented by the public.Ronald “Skip” Ressel Jr., president of the I-73 Committee of Martinsville and Henry County, revealed that the I-73 project has come to an end."The time has come to give up on this dream," Ressel told a silent crowd.Even though the interstate no longer plans to run through Henry County, Ressel encouraged the Board members to consider a corridor, which would follow a similar route."We do not want the money spent 50 miles away," Ressel said.The proposed corridor would be maintained by the Commonwealth of Virginia, and it would not have to follow the exact route originally proposed by I-73. The corridor would run from the Patriot Center to Virginia 57 to the Laurel Park interchange hosting U.S. 58 ....

This article reports that Ronald “Skip” Ressel Jr., president of the I-73 Committee of Martinsville and Henry County, revealed that the I-73 project has come to an end:

Quote

The Board of Supervisors held a meeting at 6 p.m. on Tuesday in which they opened the floor for public hearings and matters presented by the public.Ronald “Skip” Ressel Jr., president of the I-73 Committee of Martinsville and Henry County, revealed that the I-73 project has come to an end."The time has come to give up on this dream," Ressel told a silent crowd.Even though the interstate no longer plans to run through Henry County, Ressel encouraged the Board members to consider a corridor, which would follow a similar route."We do not want the money spent 50 miles away," Ressel said.The proposed corridor would be maintained by the Commonwealth of Virginia, and it would not have to follow the exact route originally proposed by I-73. The corridor would run from the Patriot Center to Virginia 57 to the Laurel Park interchange hosting U.S. 58 ....

Now we wait and see if anyone challenges Mr. Ressel's assertion.

If that is true, that would be very disappointing. If they expect to build I-73 all at once, that is not going to work. They need to start building small segments of it. I am sure somebody will challenge Mr. Ressel's assertion soon.

NOOOOOO! I'll admit I was always skeptical about the whole thing being built from NC to Roanoke because it seems VDOT never has any money for anything let alone building a whole new interstate 70 miles in mountain country. Still though I can't believe they just publicly gave up like that, at least South Carolina is talking about it with some hope(even though they know enviourmentalists will never let it happen anyways). I wonder if NC will try and make VA reconsider since ya know they spent like a billion dollars already on a now dead I-73. Lol classic NC. If anything VA please use all if anl money actually saved for this to go towards widening I-81 instead.

As I recall, VDOT looked at this awhile back, but between low traffic volumes and high construction costs, it would still require public money.

Color me unsurprised by this. Everyone who paid half an ounce of attention in Virginia realized this was politically driven, and with VDOT's perpetual budget woes combined with an increasing push to do something about urban area traffic, I-81, and I-95, this "I-73" idea never really stood a serious chance.

I don't think any new interstates that actually go through more than one state stand a chance. Today there just too expensive and much harder to build than 50 years ago. States just can't ignore there own crumbling infrastructure to build brand new,sometimes unnecessary, roads(I-73). To be honest because of this, I can't see new cross country interstates (I-49 in Arkansas, I-69, I-11, I-14, and perhaps the new I-87) ever being fully completed. There's just not nearly as much a motive and reason anymore. I think for this point on ,there should not be any more new interstates created.